--- Log opened Thu Dec 24 00:00:56 2020 01:01 -!- robot-dreams [sid463268@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-pniwmfroowfxqwor] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 01:01 -!- digi_james [sid281632@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-bsylfsfydaxyeiwf] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 01:01 -!- zmanian_ [sid113594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hghifhplxrtnlcvw] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 01:01 -!- fjahr [sid374480@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gcdbhvogjdnlkdpw] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 01:03 -!- digi_james [sid281632@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-niuyyvgfjkahduzd] has joined #secp256k1 01:03 -!- fjahr [sid374480@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gmrtxuyufltwsdfd] has joined #secp256k1 01:03 -!- robot-dreams [sid463268@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-weveujkfnsiccgjc] has joined #secp256k1 01:04 -!- zmanian_ [sid113594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-fzszccatioizjdfl] has joined #secp256k1 01:09 -!- fjahr [sid374480@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gmrtxuyufltwsdfd] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 01:21 -!- fjahr [sid374480@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zfqqgfwkqabrwayc] has joined #secp256k1 03:44 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.162.15] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 03:46 -!- jonatack [~jon@88.124.242.136] has joined #secp256k1 03:56 -!- jonatack [~jon@88.124.242.136] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 03:56 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.249] has joined #secp256k1 04:49 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.249] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 04:58 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.170.210.98] has joined #secp256k1 05:05 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.170.210.98] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 05:11 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.170.210.98] has joined #secp256k1 05:16 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.170.210.98] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 05:37 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.239] has joined #secp256k1 07:58 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #secp256k1 08:01 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 08:36 < andytoshi> BlueMatt: it's definitely possible -except- in the taproot/paytocontract cases where you get the tweak by hashing the original point 09:41 < elichai2> I found out in the past few days that any non-char comparison out there is orders of magnitude slower than memcmp (implemented some naive algs myself, tried with `std::vector <=>` and rust stdlib impl and even tried libgmp) 13:45 -!- digi_james [sid281632@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-niuyyvgfjkahduzd] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 13:47 -!- digi_james [sid281632@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-mhjqheeclznsgzum] has joined #secp256k1 13:48 -!- dr-orlovsky [~dr-orlovs@31.14.40.19] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 16:36 < sipa> andytoshi: did you see my suggestion to make the rule "no sigcheck = inconclusive" ? 16:39 < andytoshi> sipa: i did, but i don't understand how it helps with dmitry's concern 16:39 < sipa> it means not depending on any specific policy rule on the network 16:39 < andytoshi> i haven't decided whether i think it's a good rule in general 16:40 < andytoshi> i don't understand, requiring sigchecks does nothing about minimalif or cleanstack etc 16:40 < sipa> ah, right, you need those too 16:40 < sipa> i wasn't really thinking about malleability 16:40 < sipa> i'm not sure it's actually much of a concern for message signing 16:41 < andytoshi> i'm not either, but i don't like that i can't e.g. bound the size of a signature 16:41 < andytoshi> were you thinking about replacing the NOP/version checks with "must have a sigcheck"? 16:41 < sipa> yeah 16:41 < andytoshi> i think that's reasonable since there's _no_ code, not even miniscript, which will check for NOPs 16:42 < andytoshi> though these things are also not too hard to do yourself. you have to be able to parse script but not interpret it 16:42 < sipa> you can be more restrictive too 16:43 < sipa> just encounter an opcode you don't know... inconclusive (which just includes the NOPs) 16:43 < sipa> hmm 16:43 < andytoshi> yeah 16:43 < andytoshi> i'm really conflicted about dmitry's complaint ... i think he's 100% right that these standardness rules (the malleability ones) are a big implementation burden 16:43 < sipa> historically, OP_CLTV and OP_CSV would have caused problems here 16:43 < andytoshi> but on the other hand, without them you can't bound signature sizes (other than whateve the extreme "how much crap can you put on the stack" limits are) and you waste validator time checking bad signatures 16:44 < sipa> as those would look like scripts that do sigchecks to old validators 16:44 < andytoshi> ah, good point 16:44 < sipa> so it's not sufficient for all kinds of upgrades; but no sigchecks + no NOPs probably is 16:45 < sipa> that covers p2sh, segwit, taproot, ... 16:45 < andytoshi> i think checking segwit versions is much easier than checking for NOPs, you don't even need to be able to really parse script for that 16:47 < sipa> yes 16:50 < andytoshi> so i think there are two separate concerns here ... one is the malleability checks, which i think i could make a plausible case should be exposed in libbitcoinconsensus 16:50 < andytoshi> and the other are the "upgradeable" checks, which (a) have no business in libbitcoinconsensus, (b) will cause the BIP to change over time and creates a weird pseudo-dependence on current network rules 16:51 < sipa> right, those are distinct concerns 17:23 -!- lukedashjr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #secp256k1 17:23 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 17:27 -!- lukedashjr is now known as luke-jr 21:54 -!- andytoshi [~apoelstra@unaffiliated/andytoshi] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 21:54 -!- andytoshi [~apoelstra@unaffiliated/andytoshi] has joined #secp256k1 --- Log closed Fri Dec 25 00:00:56 2020